Being a slow learner, I would consider contributing again if it appeared a viable option

HA! It might be time to rotate who takes the lead in DW then! Come to think about it I don't recall having a vote the first time around. There is a reason why a representative and deliberative body makes good sense for representation. Anyone else change their views in this past year of practical experience? I have. Always learning.

The constitution remains the same, I guess the bylaws remain the same. The Forrest amendment—I can't figure out what happened to that. I'm unsure whether the motorhome amendment is coming up next month either.

The leadership seems to be just about the same. Shrinking numbers remain the same, or worse.

Suing the organization seems unlikely—that would need completely new people to have credibility with potential donors. The threat of a lawsuit may get a leader of the effort admittance to the inner circle for a while, but that seems to be about it. Whether the whole amendment thing was a sham from the beginning to disarm the lawsuit effort and then junk the thing later on is something that we will probably never know. If that was the plan, I'd give the perp an award for chutzpah, but people usually aren't that clever.

That leaves:

1. being quiet and accepting the way things are to allow people to camp with their friends,
2. moving on from the WBCCI, or,
3. organizing a political struggle to take over the organization.

One other thought—if you were among the leadership of the organization and you saw the opposition to change (i.e., constitutional changes), wouldn't you think the members like things just the way they are? I think, given the egos involved, they might pat themselves on the back and feel they were doing the right thing and be encouraged to find a way to get that motorhome thing adopted as soon as possible.

Denco amendment is proceeding down the alternate path and will be the law of the land as soon as 2/3 of the units get their approving votes in to Jackson Center. Motorhome amendment will be advanced by the IBT and be scheduled for next year's delegates' meeting at the January meeting and will fail. The New IP will appoint a new Constitutional review committee to report to the IBT in January. The nominating committee will appoint their own successor clones and the set of clones officers will be elected into office without opposition. The Du Quoin International will have about 500 trailers and lose a lot of money. The membership will decline again next year. There will be talk of reducing the number of Regions. Some of the smaller older units will age out and disband.

I look for the DenCo amendment to pass. The official notice went to the unit presidents from HQ after most units had their spring business meeting so they will not consider it until fall. But the great thing about the grassroots amendment path it has taken is that if 2/3 of the units ratify, it is adopted untouched by the EC, IBT, or delegates.

The only thing that isn't clear is who counts (or doesn't count) the certificates of ratification as they come into HQ.
.

I look for the DenCo amendment to pass. The official notice went to the unit presidents from HQ after most units had their spring business meeting so they will not consider it until fall. But the great thing about the grassroots amendment path it has taken is that if 2/3 of the units ratify, it is adopted untouched by the EC, IBT, or delegates.

The only thing that isn't clear is who counts (or doesn't count) the certificates of ratification as they come into HQ.
.

It should pass, the changes can come from as many sources as needed.

The way I understand it is not all units need to vote as soon as the 2/3 magic number is reached it is adopted.

That can happen anytime between Aug - Oct.

As far as the vote being verified I believe it should be made public to the membership.

You're an optomist. I fear a way will be found to stop it.( Denco/Forrest's Motion) There is ALWAYS something, that will be created to cause turmoil. Unfortunately, turmoil to S.O.P for this club, and it has become a big turn-off. Back during 2011 Mid Winter, I had the pleasure of speaking by phone with the IP, but when it was found out I was no longer an Unit Officer, I was called a "nobody", and the IP no longer would take my call. These shanagins with the Revison, Bob, all of us ,we have been had. The MoHo issue is yet another bit of turmoil that won't stop until........so, I don't believe for one minute the unrest will stop. Its wielded over us members like a big club.

I don't believe it is time to close the thread either. I expect it will become much quieter and maybe nicer but we have been promised by the IP that the constitution amendment will be carried forward by the incoming IP. Perhaps even by the next 5 or 6 IP's. It may never be the right time to bring it before the delegates so the thread goes on.

This will all be hashed over at the Delegates Seminar, before the start of the Delegates Meeting, which now has nothing to do except rubber stamp the new officer elections. (Oh, yes, and vote on Amendment 2, directing the Nominating Committee publish information on all qualified candidates, which I hope will pass.)

For starters, why do we need a constitutional revision anyway? (Aside from the opportunity to create a committee to neutralize the lawsuit.) Most of the amendments are of no real significance. (For example, changing the spelling of "non-profit" to "nonprofit" in Article I.) The few changes that are significant could be handled the usual way with amendments.

In any case most of the improvements claimed for the revised constitution actually take place in the bylaws, which can be amended by the IBT any time they want.
.

Back on 2-21-2011 I wrote, "And NOW, the revision belongs to the President who is getting input from PIPs. What you think was your final draft, is not the draft we will see. Just wait, they will not fail to disappoint you."

On 2-22-2011 LI Pets wrote, "That's incorrect, Forrest it has our signatures, unchanged, in accord with RONR a committee's report can't be changed except by the assembly... Any changes will occur at the delegates meeting."

I responded, "It is going to be the President's motion. He owns it and can do whatever he wants with it. Your committee was a "special committee" and he owned that too. You're living in fantasy land my friend if you didn't know that."

LI Pets answered, "Not the case, in a conference with the full committee and Norm all those issues were discussed... No fantasies."

Then, this June, Norm Beu wrote, "It was an easy trap to fall into.... I will not make the motion concerning the proposed Revision during the next Delegates' Meeting."

I admit to taking Norm's, "an easy trap," out of context, but it really seems to apply (who knows, perhaps it was a Freudian slip on his part). Can I say that I told you so? Or are you still a true believer?